every time I get summoned here, I have a quick look around and find that this place gets worse and worse, it's like a black hole which mangles everything that gets sucked into it. src
By voter fraud, do you mean taking advantage of people who no longer possess their mental capacities, people who suffer from dementia and senility, by catering entire industries to try to get their vote?
Old Republicans?
Hillary voters?
Mexicans?
Millenials?
I'm not sure if that dude realizes the ambiguity of that question...
So I’ll call, like, major—major countries, and I’ll be dealing with the prime minister or the president. And I’ll say, how are you doing? Oh, don’t know, don’t know, not well, Mr. President, not well. I said, well, what’s the problem? Oh, GDP 9 percent, not well. And I’m saying to myself, here we are at like 1 percent, dying, and they’re at 9 percent and they’re unhappy. So, you know, and these are like countries, you know, fairly large, like 300 million people. You know, a lot of people say—they say, well, but the United States is large. And then you call places like Malaysia, Indonesia, and you say, you know, how many people do you have? And it’s pretty amazing how many people they have. So China’s going to be at 7 or 8 percent, and they have a billion-five, right? So we should do really well.
Trump thinks the US needs to boost it's GDP growth rate to the level of developing countries because Trump completely misunderstands the law of large numbers
And there it is, took me awhile to coax it out of you. The unsupported notion that GDP growth higher than 2% is impossible.
No, this is called you being illiterate. Higher than 2% is possible, nowhere near what Trump claimed he could get.
Trust me, it is possible and it is happening.
Are you actually this retarded? Why do you engage on subjects you have no education in? Do you actually just not understand the difference between annual GDP growth and quarterly GDP growth?
Why anyone continues to listen to failed crackpots like Krugman who have been wrong about everything for the past decade is beyond me.
It's nice that you weaved an attack on Krugman in there after displaying you're economically illiterate and don't know the difference between quarterly and annual GDP growth.
Sure 9% sustained GDP isn't possible in the US. But it's also absurd to claim 1.7% is the best we can do.
Higher than 2% is possible, nowhere near what Trump claimed he could get.
Tell me where in that quote he claims to achieve a given GDP? What he is talking about is obvious to every non-anal person, that we should strive for better than 1.7% or even better than 3%.
This is actually a good example of Trump and his economic illiteracy rubbing off on his cult. He, just like you, doesn't actually know the difference between quarterly and annual GDP growth.
The quarterly rate is going to be predictive of the annual rate. Are you actually retarded? People don't roll dice at the end of the year to see what the annual rate was.
If the quarterly rate was 3% the first quarter, and is on track to be 5% Q2, it's looking good for the year to possibly be above 3%.
When economists told him he wouldn't hit 3% annual GDP growth
It was more desperate baseless claims from intellectuals to protect the one president that never saw 3% annual GDP growth.
Tell me where in that quote he claims to achieve a given GDP? What he is talking about is obvious to every non-anal person, that we should strive for better than 1.7% or even better than 3%.
What are you even talking about? Trump claimed he'd hit over 3% annual GDP growth multiple times.
The quarterly rate is going to be predictive of the annual rate. Are you actually retarded? People don't roll dice at the end of the year to see what the annual rate was.
No shit the quarterly rate is "predictive" of annual, but not in a way you think.
If the quarterly rate was 3% the first quarter, and is on track to be 5% Q2, it's looking good for the year to possibly be above 3%.
???
Let me give you an example of how dumb you are.
take 2015, for example.
Jun 30, 2015 4.46%
Mar 31, 2015 4.95%
Sep 30, 2015 3.44%
Dec 31, 2015 3.11%
Here is the quarterly growth for 2015.
The annual growth rate was still only 2.9%.
It was more desperate baseless claims from intellectuals to protect the one president that never saw 3% annual GDP growth.
Trump didn't fucking hit 3%. He hasn't hit 3% you mongoloid. Which means they were fucking right.
The Congressional Budget Office forecasts an annual average of about 1.9% well into the next decade.
You're trying to claim a projection that looks over a decade into the future is somehow wrong because the economy grew at 2.3% in 2017.
Do you have any idea how fucking stupid you are?
Also economists like Krugman have said several times.
Copy paste Krugman saying the economy can't grow at more than 1.7%.
Yes because you randomly rearranged the numbers. If you put them in quarterly order you can clearly see how the economy was contracting and thus led to sub 3% annual GDP.
Right now we are seeing the quarterly GDP increase.
Trump didn't fucking hit 3%. He hasn't hit 3% you mongoloid. Which means they were fucking right.
You are actually retarded. He didn't hit it yet, because he couldn't have. You have to wait until the end of the year to see what the rate is, so you trying to claim a victory over this is laughable. We can't know either way yet.
All we know right now is Q1 GDP was 3% and Q2 is looking like it will be 5%. Both good numbers.
You're trying to claim a projection that looks over a decade into the future is somehow wrong because the economy
you asked me who said 1.7% growth. Don't get bussy blasted when the number comes from your precious CBO.
Copy paste Krugman saying the economy can't grow at more than 1.7%.
Yes because you randomly rearranged the numbers. If you put them in quarterly order you can clearly see how the economy was contracting and thus led to sub 3% annual GDP.
Oh fucking please, retard.
You are actually retarded. He didn't hit it yet, because he couldn't have. You have to wait until the end of the year to see what the rate is, so you trying to claim a victory over this is laughable. We can't know either way yet.
No, you ape, Trump claimed he would hit 3% in 2017, when the economists told him he was wrong, he tried to attack them.
When economists told him he wouldn't hit 3% annual GDP growth, the economy had a quarterly growth rate of about 3.1%
Trump, not knowing the difference, took to twitter to attack the "lying economists" even though he never actually hit 3% annual, which is exactly what they said.
Economists lie all the time. That's about all they do. Funny that you lot focus on this while ignoring all of the other fucking lies, like the big goddamn elephant in the room where fucks like Oblahblah used U3 fuckery to game the unemployment numbers.
No doubt you'll be attacking trump for that shit as you lot have done recently with the "Muh imprisoned children" stories while ignoring your silence during the time of The Great Oblahblah.
Economists lie all the time. That's about all they do. Funny that you lot focus on this while ignoring all of the other fucking lies, like the big goddamn elephant in the room where fucks like Oblahblah used U3 fuckery to game the unemployment numbers.
Nobody used "u3 fuckery to game the unemployment numbers" you fucking mongoloid.
Nobody ever cared about anything other than u3 before Obama was in office. The hilarious part is, even if you used other metrics, the numbers were fine:
No, just because you don't believe something, just because something conflicts with your delusional worldview does not mean it is a "lie." And this doesn't change the fact, that, you know, they were right and he was wrong, but due to his economic illiteracy he couldn't figure that out.
No doubt you'll be attacking trump for that shit as you lot have done recently with the "Muh imprisoned children" stories while ignoring your silence during the time of The Great Oblahblah.
Yeah, I get you've got a fresh batch of talking points from your mentally ill echo chamber, sadly they have no basis in reality.
Other admins didn't separate children from families. The only children that were detained were unaccompanied minors.
"Before Trump came into office, families were detained together, sent back immediately or paroled into the country" [jump] "Previous administrations felt broad use of the 'prosecute-first' option was needlessly harsh," [jump] "The Trump administration has been considering separating families at the border since the early months of his presidency, hoping that harsh treatment would deter illegal immigration."
"What the US is doing now, there is no equivalent," said Michael Flynn, executive director of the Geneva-based Global Detention Project, a non-profit group focused on the rights of detained immigrants. "There's nothing like this anywhere".
TIL that not understanding the concept of uneven economic development and the particular advantages of "late bloomers" = "not understanding what GDP is" in Liberaltown.
He literally doesn't even know the difference between quarterly and annual GDP growth and thinks people think the reason China has higher GDP growth is because they have more people.
He very blatantly has no clue what he's talking about. Stop defending him.
I'm not the person claiming every scientific org on the planet, every space agency on the planet, and research dating back to the early 1900s is in reality "China."
I don't know. Just because the GOP got Trump on stage does not excuse the left from being less retarded.
More like "Left on the brink of breakdown right totally nuts." I mean, if the left are thinking to get Operah and Starbuck's CEO to run, how much better are they than the GOP?
True, but they use their stability to prop up their "too big to fail" buddies, wage war, and take away your civil liberties. I guess we wouldn't all be about to starve to death with these tariffs with Hillary in office, but let's not pretend she'd be great for the common man either.
It's like wild to me how people confuse shit republicans do with shit democrats do.
Guess which party was in control when we decided to launch 2 wars that still haven't ended, 2 wars that snowballed into what we see today?
Who was in charge the first time we went to war with Iraq?
Also, you realize the GOP is far more friendly with corporations than democrats are, right? this type of up is down and down is up reality is a real problem in this country.
You know I always hear about how anti-war democrats are, but except for a few fringe players like Sanders (who isn't even really a democrat) and Kucinich (who got gerrymandered out of office for not towing the party line) it doesn't really seem like they put that much effort into anti-imperialism, peace promotion, or generally slowing down the GOP's warmongering in any meaningful way. Obama was commander in chief for 8 damn years, the buck stopped with him, he had the power to bomb less people. He had 8 straight years of war instead, he got us involved in Yemen, Libya, Syria, and kept us in Iraq and Afghanistan. We saw the expansion of drone warfare (with staggering collateral damage numbers to go along with it), we saw Bagram Air Base turned into a permanent Guantanamo style prison, I mean what more do you want to be convinced that Obama was a pro war guy? "Bush was a shitty warmonger too" isn't a very good excuse.
No, it's not ok to kill them, but when the alternative is even more of them dying, you do what has to be done.
How can you possibly think it's ok to throw an entire region into chaos, and then 8 years later just say "oops, our bad, gl with this mess" and pull out?
Let's say I charge my neighbor with a knife like a lunatic. Then after the 5th or 6th stab I come to my senses and say "oh no I really hurt this guy, someone should do something!" I look around but no doctors are in sight. Is it better to a) leave so I don't make things worse or b) continue stabbing him? After all, doctors use scalpels and that's like a kind of knife, so maybe if I keep stabbing he'll get better?
That's US foreign policy in a nutshell. We have no clue how to stabilize the Middle East or make things better, but dammit we're gonna keep killing people until it happens!
You can't just throw an entire region into chaos, create a power vacuum, and then let a genocidal terrorist organization have the country and surrounding countries.
If the US leaves - you are literally condemning those people to live under one of the vilest organizations in human history.
Anyone that supports pulling out of the middle east after creating this mess literally supports letting religious extremists genocide half the population.
This is why we're never going to leave. When you think you need to do something no matter what that something is, you do dumb things. Look at it this way: The US kills 1 terrorist and 10 innocent kids. You're the older brother of one of those kids. Do you think "gee, I'm sure my sibling's death was for the greater good" or do you begin to see ISIS as the reasonable ones?
If you think anything the US does there is on equal footing with the terrorists, you are sadly mistaken.
True, but the people who live there cannot view the US/ISIS conflict objectively. What we are doing looks just as bad. Did we learn anything from Vietnam? Psychology plays a huge part in war, there's more to it than just a good kill/death ratio.
It'd be like letting the Nazies have Germany.
I see this comparison brought up a lot, but the US was culturally more similar to Germany and so had a better understanding of the problem. We're not useless in every scenario, just certain scenarios (such as the Middle East).
Objectively true in the context of the US.
Not so much "left good right bad" as "left mentally stable right mentally unstable."
Only one sided elected a learning disabled moron, fam.
I don't know. It smells more like a "free ride through life" type of person to me.
They made sure to let everyone know that they are successful and educated all off of someone else's dime, but then turned around and said that wealth is a bad thing. The multiple 'leech' comments really drive it all home.
Technically true, Trump conquered some traditionally blue states by appealing to the same gibz demographic Dems traditionally pandered to on the side. Traditional rich Repubs likely supported more traditional candidates like Guac Bowl, but I doubt they switched parties as the GOP will try to push for rich tax cuts regardless of the president in power.
You must have been really oblivious to the topic, then.
No, I'm talking about the demography with libraries full of studies documenting the effects of advanced senescence on the elderly. What you are doing is more comparable to accusing someone of referring to racial segregation because they argue against giving voting rights to children.
Then you must be really oblivious to the topic then, if you think that the effects of advanced senescence apply to 18-30 year olds or that the circumstances surrounding them are the same ones that make the elderly vulnerable to predators in this regard. In fact, given that you seem willing to understand why children are not allowed to vote, I can only assume that I'm arguing against someone who isn't quite aware with the mental deterioration that occurs with age and makes the elderly comparably vulnerable as their faculties are slowly regressed to that of children's.
In other words, you are trying to argue a completely different point ... so that you can argue against it? I mean, I think you've failed to realize your argument lost flair once you stopped trying to compare it to racial segregation and started comparing it to "young voters".
"for a moment I thought you were talking about young voters." Oh no, the horror of somehow being compared to a common debate.
Not only that, but the circumstances are different. A lot of the impetus behind allowing people at younger ages to vote simply does not apply to retired elderly. They are not in the job market, nor are they in any danger of giving up their lives in the military without the right to vote, nor are they in a condition defined by the growing impairment of their faculties.
No. My point is saying a certain population shouldn't vote because they are prone to be "manipulated" and likely "vote against their own" interest are dumb, and disingenuous.
Just admit you want everybody to vote like you do.
Reread your comment, and realize that you are doing what I've pointed out: you are trying to argue a completely different point so that you can argue against it. You are reducing the argument to what you want it to be to make it sufficiently generic to interpret something else under its banner, ignoring the repeated attempts of informing you of the nuances.
You are basically tailoring the argument because you just want to see your gross mis-characterization validated, that "[I] just want everybody to vote like [I] do". You have not entered this argument to inform yourself in any way.
Not really, the standards are quite precise: retired, or not retired, which also corresponds to their ability to be involved with, participate, and represent the society they are voting in. And hey, it even corresponds a lot of the impetus wdhy people as young as 18 are given voting power, an issue you were feigning relevant just a few comments ago.
What is irrelevant is the notion that the exception should determine the norm, as that would throw any notion of norm out the window. According to this logic, children should also vote, as there are child geniuses more mature than some adults. Sorry, but medical studies on the effects of prolongued senescence and the elderly are not "arbitrary".
Banning them from voting because they tend to vote against your reason and then brand it as protecting their interest is disingenuous.
Again, that's not the reason behind it,, but at this point, you are just repeating it because:
Reread your comment, and realize that you are doing what I've pointed out: you are trying to argue a completely different point so that you can argue against it. ... You are basically tailoring the argument because you just want to see your gross mis-characterization validated
128 comments
1 SnapshillBot 2018-06-18
every time I get summoned here, I have a quick look around and find that this place gets worse and worse, it's like a black hole which mangles everything that gets sucked into it. src
Snapshots:
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
1 DonnyBravoKingofEire 2018-06-18
Who writes these?
1 kippot 2018-06-18
Was the summer of eighteeeeeen
1 SAC-Lawn_Gnome 2018-06-18
Voted controversial, lol.
1 newcomer_ts 2018-06-18
I disagree. Also, you are brainwashed.
1 SAC-Lawn_Gnome 2018-06-18
Yes Master
1 KillAllCentrists 2018-06-18
💦💦💦😥
1 SJCards 2018-06-18
Get the fuck out of here with this blasphemous username.
1 KillAllCentrists 2018-06-18
The only way to be a true centrist is to hate centrists at the same time. If anything, I'm the enlightened one.
1 SJCards 2018-06-18
Leave the self-loathing to the inferior spectrum worshipers.
1 Russiangreyman 2018-06-18
u/PM_WHAT_YOU_GOT
You’re mean 😔
1 Maximothewizard 2018-06-18
When you get the critical thinking in the shit posting Reddit you know we in the Twilight zone now boys.
1 EarnestNoMeta 2018-06-18
r/politics in a nutshell
1 newcomer_ts 2018-06-18
Old Republicans?
Hillary voters?
Mexicans?
Millenials?
I'm not sure if that dude realizes the ambiguity of that question...
1 headasplodes 2018-06-18
Liberal media would never, EVER mislead people.
Lol how do these people exist
1 wwaalleess 2018-06-18
left good right bad
1 pizzashill 2018-06-18
Objectively true in the context of the US.
Not so much "left good right bad" as "left mentally stable right mentally unstable."
1 wwaalleess 2018-06-18
left ugly weak bitches right sexy tough guys
1 pizzashill 2018-06-18
Literally elected someone that speaks at a 2nd grade level and can't even form a coherent sentence.
1 wwaalleess 2018-06-18
I wouldn't expect someone in your IQ bracket to understand what a stable genius Trump is.
1 pizzashill 2018-06-18
1 wwaalleess 2018-06-18
The only logical option is to ban vaccines.
1 pizzashill 2018-06-18
1 wwaalleess 2018-06-18
I enjoy warmer weather, tbh
1 pizzashill 2018-06-18
1 wwaalleess 2018-06-18
You know what, I won't even attempt to make a joke about this because I have no idea what it is even trying to say.
1 uniqueguy263 2018-06-18
Trump thinks the US needs to boost it's GDP growth rate to the level of developing countries because Trump completely misunderstands the law of large numbers
1 BigPriceToupee 2018-06-18
I think you misunderstand the implications of uneven development.
1 BrotherToaster 2018-06-18
Hook, line and sinker.
1 Fiat-Libertas 2018-06-18
This is honestly not even that bad of an example.
I suppose you're the type of person that prefers completely scripted speeches that have gone through a focus group 6 times and are read verbatum 😴😴😴
1 pizzashill 2018-06-18
TIL not understanding what GDP is = "not that bad."
1 Fiat-Libertas 2018-06-18
?
Humor me what you think he doesn't understand from that quote.
1 pizzashill 2018-06-18
Are you seriously asking me this?
1 Fiat-Libertas 2018-06-18
Yes, because as usual, you just make a retarded point with no support and do the usual leftist "hurr I dun even have to expayn it 2 u"
1 pizzashill 2018-06-18
I'll give you a hint.
Trump thinks the reason people say US gdp growth is lower than Chinese growth is because of population size.
1 Fiat-Libertas 2018-06-18
And there it is, took me awhile to coax it out of you. The unsupported notion that GDP growth higher than 2% is impossible.
Trust me, it is possible and it is happening.
Why anyone continues to listen to failed crackpots like Krugman who have been wrong about everything for the past decade is beyond me.
Sure 9% sustained GDP isn't possible in the US. But it's also absurd to claim 1.7% is the best we can do.
1 pizzashill 2018-06-18
No, this is called you being illiterate. Higher than 2% is possible, nowhere near what Trump claimed he could get.
Are you actually this retarded? Why do you engage on subjects you have no education in? Do you actually just not understand the difference between annual GDP growth and quarterly GDP growth?
Here, let me help you out.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/188165/annual-gdp-growth-of-the-united-states-since-1990/
Here's annual GDP growth dating back to the 1990s. Notice anything?
Here's quarterly GDP growth dating back to the 1990s:
http://www.multpl.com/us-gdp-growth-rate/table/by-quarter
Notice anything?
It's nice that you weaved an attack on Krugman in there after displaying you're economically illiterate and don't know the difference between quarterly and annual GDP growth.
Who said 1.7% was the best the US could do?
1 Fiat-Libertas 2018-06-18
Tell me where in that quote he claims to achieve a given GDP? What he is talking about is obvious to every non-anal person, that we should strive for better than 1.7% or even better than 3%.
The quarterly rate is going to be predictive of the annual rate. Are you actually retarded? People don't roll dice at the end of the year to see what the annual rate was.
If the quarterly rate was 3% the first quarter, and is on track to be 5% Q2, it's looking good for the year to possibly be above 3%.
It was more desperate baseless claims from intellectuals to protect the one president that never saw 3% annual GDP growth.
The Congressional Budget Office forecasts an annual average of about 1.9% well into the next decade.
Also economists like Krugman have said several times.
1 pizzashill 2018-06-18
What are you even talking about? Trump claimed he'd hit over 3% annual GDP growth multiple times.
http://fortune.com/2017/12/07/trump-us-gdp-growth-rate-economy-6-percent/
Then, when the economists told him he wouldn't hit 3% annual, and he hit 3% quarterly, he tried to attack them:
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-gdp-20180427-story.html
No shit the quarterly rate is "predictive" of annual, but not in a way you think.
???
Let me give you an example of how dumb you are.
take 2015, for example.
Here is the quarterly growth for 2015.
The annual growth rate was still only 2.9%.
Trump didn't fucking hit 3%. He hasn't hit 3% you mongoloid. Which means they were fucking right.
You're trying to claim a projection that looks over a decade into the future is somehow wrong because the economy grew at 2.3% in 2017.
Do you have any idea how fucking stupid you are?
Copy paste Krugman saying the economy can't grow at more than 1.7%.
1 Fiat-Libertas 2018-06-18
Yes because you randomly rearranged the numbers. If you put them in quarterly order you can clearly see how the economy was contracting and thus led to sub 3% annual GDP.
Right now we are seeing the quarterly GDP increase.
You are actually retarded. He didn't hit it yet, because he couldn't have. You have to wait until the end of the year to see what the rate is, so you trying to claim a victory over this is laughable. We can't know either way yet.
All we know right now is Q1 GDP was 3% and Q2 is looking like it will be 5%. Both good numbers.
you asked me who said 1.7% growth. Don't get bussy blasted when the number comes from your precious CBO.
"What I would say is that it’s unreasonable to assume growth over the next 10 years more than a fraction of a percentage point above 2 percent"
So easy to prove you wrong.
1 pizzashill 2018-06-18
Oh fucking please, retard.
No, you ape, Trump claimed he would hit 3% in 2017, when the economists told him he was wrong, he tried to attack them.
He even bragged about it.
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/348600-trump-touts-3-percent-economic-growth-takes-shot-at-obama
He even attacked Obama for "never hitting 3% annual" while pretending he himself had. Stop.
In 2018?
No, g1 was 2.2%.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/27/business/economy/gdp-economy.html
Them saying the average will be 1.9% over the next decade is not them saying "the economy won't grow at more than 1.7%.
So Krugman correctly stating the GDP will grow a little over 2% the next 10 years is Krugman saying the economy can't grow at more than 1.7%?
1 BigPriceToupee 2018-06-18
Economists lie all the time. That's about all they do. Funny that you lot focus on this while ignoring all of the other fucking lies, like the big goddamn elephant in the room where fucks like Oblahblah used U3 fuckery to game the unemployment numbers.
No doubt you'll be attacking trump for that shit as you lot have done recently with the "Muh imprisoned children" stories while ignoring your silence during the time of The Great Oblahblah.
1 pizzashill 2018-06-18
Nobody used "u3 fuckery to game the unemployment numbers" you fucking mongoloid.
Nobody ever cared about anything other than u3 before Obama was in office. The hilarious part is, even if you used other metrics, the numbers were fine:
http://www.macrotrends.net/1377/u6-unemployment-rate
No, just because you don't believe something, just because something conflicts with your delusional worldview does not mean it is a "lie." And this doesn't change the fact, that, you know, they were right and he was wrong, but due to his economic illiteracy he couldn't figure that out.
Yeah, I get you've got a fresh batch of talking points from your mentally ill echo chamber, sadly they have no basis in reality.
Other admins didn't separate children from families. The only children that were detained were unaccompanied minors.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2018/jun/06/what-you-need-know-about-trump-administrations-zer/
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44503514
1 BigPriceToupee 2018-06-18
You had a chance to explain the difference and you chose not to. YOu didn't even bother to try.
1 uniqueguy263 2018-06-18
Developing countries grow faster than developed countries because developing countries are developing and developed countries are developed
1 BigPriceToupee 2018-06-18
TIL that not understanding the concept of uneven economic development and the particular advantages of "late bloomers" = "not understanding what GDP is" in Liberaltown.
1 pizzashill 2018-06-18
He literally doesn't even know the difference between quarterly and annual GDP growth and thinks people think the reason China has higher GDP growth is because they have more people.
He very blatantly has no clue what he's talking about. Stop defending him.
1 _MAGAMEMNON_ 2018-06-18
It was
1 pizzashill 2018-06-18
If you unironically believe this then you're so retarded me replying to you in any real way is a waste of time.
1 cheers_grills 2018-06-18
1 _MAGAMEMNON_ 2018-06-18
You posting at all is definitely a waste of time
1 pizzashill 2018-06-18
I'm not the person claiming every scientific org on the planet, every space agency on the planet, and research dating back to the early 1900s is in reality "China."
1 _MAGAMEMNON_ 2018-06-18
Yeah, you aren't known for claiming things that are correct.
1 pizzashill 2018-06-18
What have I said that isn't factually correct?
1 _MAGAMEMNON_ 2018-06-18
I don't keep a goddamn list of every dumb thing you spout off. Just click on your own profile, you dum-dum.
1 pizzashill 2018-06-18
Exactly as I thought.
1 _MAGAMEMNON_ 2018-06-18
:thinking:
1 BigPriceToupee 2018-06-18
Yes, because idiocy was certainly not a thing before the advent of small pox vaccination.
1 BigPriceToupee 2018-06-18
WE like p uzzles
1 Googlaloo 2018-06-18
you're proof of that
1 pizzashill 2018-06-18
Being smarter than you is not autism.
1 BigPriceToupee 2018-06-18
"stable genius" = cleans the horse manure
1 zergling_Lester 2018-06-18
It's pottery.
1 XhotwheelsloverX 2018-06-18
Can I interest you in some male vitality supplements?
1 BigPriceToupee 2018-06-18
You think this is going to make one of the Alt-blighties date you? LOL good luck
1 ineedmorealts 2018-06-18
noooooo pizzashill, don't go fill retard
You got them there
1 Pepperglue 2018-06-18
I don't know. Just because the GOP got Trump on stage does not excuse the left from being less retarded.
More like "Left on the brink of breakdown right totally nuts." I mean, if the left are thinking to get Operah and Starbuck's CEO to run, how much better are they than the GOP?
1 _MAGAMEMNON_ 2018-06-18
You mad because you failed to elect your addled moron lol
1 freet0 2018-06-18
Jokes on him we elected a different addled moron
1 bjt23 2018-06-18
True, but they use their stability to prop up their "too big to fail" buddies, wage war, and take away your civil liberties. I guess we wouldn't all be about to starve to death with these tariffs with Hillary in office, but let's not pretend she'd be great for the common man either.
1 pizzashill 2018-06-18
It's like wild to me how people confuse shit republicans do with shit democrats do.
Guess which party was in control when we decided to launch 2 wars that still haven't ended, 2 wars that snowballed into what we see today?
Who was in charge the first time we went to war with Iraq?
Also, you realize the GOP is far more friendly with corporations than democrats are, right? this type of up is down and down is up reality is a real problem in this country.
1 bjt23 2018-06-18
You know I always hear about how anti-war democrats are, but except for a few fringe players like Sanders (who isn't even really a democrat) and Kucinich (who got gerrymandered out of office for not towing the party line) it doesn't really seem like they put that much effort into anti-imperialism, peace promotion, or generally slowing down the GOP's warmongering in any meaningful way. Obama was commander in chief for 8 damn years, the buck stopped with him, he had the power to bomb less people. He had 8 straight years of war instead, he got us involved in Yemen, Libya, Syria, and kept us in Iraq and Afghanistan. We saw the expansion of drone warfare (with staggering collateral damage numbers to go along with it), we saw Bagram Air Base turned into a permanent Guantanamo style prison, I mean what more do you want to be convinced that Obama was a pro war guy? "Bush was a shitty warmonger too" isn't a very good excuse.
1 pizzashill 2018-06-18
You don't get to start multiple wars, throw the world into chaos, and then just pull put.
Obama did the right thing.
1 bjt23 2018-06-18
Literally democrats
1 pizzashill 2018-06-18
No, it's not ok to kill them, but when the alternative is even more of them dying, you do what has to be done.
How can you possibly think it's ok to throw an entire region into chaos, and then 8 years later just say "oops, our bad, gl with this mess" and pull out?
1 bjt23 2018-06-18
Let's say I charge my neighbor with a knife like a lunatic. Then after the 5th or 6th stab I come to my senses and say "oh no I really hurt this guy, someone should do something!" I look around but no doctors are in sight. Is it better to a) leave so I don't make things worse or b) continue stabbing him? After all, doctors use scalpels and that's like a kind of knife, so maybe if I keep stabbing he'll get better?
That's US foreign policy in a nutshell. We have no clue how to stabilize the Middle East or make things better, but dammit we're gonna keep killing people until it happens!
1 pizzashill 2018-06-18
This comparison doesn't work.
You can't just throw an entire region into chaos, create a power vacuum, and then let a genocidal terrorist organization have the country and surrounding countries.
If the US leaves - you are literally condemning those people to live under one of the vilest organizations in human history.
Anyone that supports pulling out of the middle east after creating this mess literally supports letting religious extremists genocide half the population.
1 bjt23 2018-06-18
This is why we're never going to leave. When you think you need to do something no matter what that something is, you do dumb things. Look at it this way: The US kills 1 terrorist and 10 innocent kids. You're the older brother of one of those kids. Do you think "gee, I'm sure my sibling's death was for the greater good" or do you begin to see ISIS as the reasonable ones?
1 pizzashill 2018-06-18
That's better than "hand genocidal terrorist organizations absurd amounts of resources so they can genocide even more people."
1 bjt23 2018-06-18
You're literally encouraging people to join the genocidal terrorists.
1 pizzashill 2018-06-18
If you think anything the US does there is on equal footing with the terrorists, you are sadly mistaken.
If you hand ISIS the middle east - they now control the entire population.
They control the education system. They can now indoctrinate every single child that grows up there.
You are literally gifting them an entire generation of soldiers, on top of an absurd amount of resources.
1 bjt23 2018-06-18
True, but the people who live there cannot view the US/ISIS conflict objectively. What we are doing looks just as bad. Did we learn anything from Vietnam? Psychology plays a huge part in war, there's more to it than just a good kill/death ratio.
I see this comparison brought up a lot, but the US was culturally more similar to Germany and so had a better understanding of the problem. We're not useless in every scenario, just certain scenarios (such as the Middle East).
1 BigPriceToupee 2018-06-18
It really depends how you define "left"
1 Kat_B0T 2018-06-18
1 freet0 2018-06-18
I really don't think you're the right person to talk about mental stability
1 Fiat-Libertas 2018-06-18
Same people that unironically believe CNN is pro Trump because they don't just 24/7 run a picture of him with a swastika in the background.
1 Shitposting_Skeleton 2018-06-18
They do seem to run a picture of Trump 24/7 though.
1 BigPriceToupee 2018-06-18
LOL believes in a "liberal media"
Probably believes in tooth fairies, santa clauses and the virgin birth of (Republican) senators.
1 Alexlincoln2 2018-06-18
Every single major media company in the United states has personal that are majority democrat.
1 toynbeeidea16 2018-06-18
Unironically bring back literacy tests.
1 boyoyoyoyong 2018-06-18
Millennials were a mistake
1 watermark02 2018-06-18
What about when we take out all of the geezers subsisting off of SS? Fucking leeches.
1 _MAGAMEMNON_ 2018-06-18
NEET detected
1 HueyCrashTestPilot 2018-06-18
I don't know. It smells more like a "free ride through life" type of person to me.
They made sure to let everyone know that they are successful and educated all off of someone else's dime, but then turned around and said that wealth is a bad thing. The multiple 'leech' comments really drive it all home.
1 Shitposting_Skeleton 2018-06-18
Technically true, Trump conquered some traditionally blue states by appealing to the same gibz demographic Dems traditionally pandered to on the side. Traditional rich Repubs likely supported more traditional candidates like Guac Bowl, but I doubt they switched parties as the GOP will try to push for rich tax cuts regardless of the president in power.
1 bjt23 2018-06-18
Big if true! (Seriously though gimmie a source so I can share it for lulz.)
1 SizeOfThisLad 2018-06-18
If we're going to bar any one group from voting it should be the 22-year-old self-righteous NEETs and soyboys of /r/politics tbqh
1 wwyzzerdd 2018-06-18
They don't vote anyway.
Seriously you could raise the voting age to 28 and there would not be an appreciable effect on the total or the outcome.
1 Fiat-Libertas 2018-06-18
It's why I support weed legalization tbh.
NEETs can't vote for muh gibs if they just get high on election day.
1 The_Reason_Trump_Won 2018-06-18
1 watermark02 2018-06-18
Trump won because you're retarded.
1 Mexagon 2018-06-18
Never post again.
1 cheers_grills 2018-06-18
Reconsider playing Russian Roullette pls
1 The_Reason_Trump_Won 2018-06-18
? I'm a Democrat, nerd
Also
1 the_popcorn_pisser 2018-06-18
>being this ass blasted
lol
1 Power_Incarnate 2018-06-18
I mean one of those ran for president last election. Granted his own party basically cast him out.
1 _MAGAMEMNON_ 2018-06-18
Bernie can still win this!
1 error404brain 2018-06-18
No. People that do not have a bachelor at least shouldn't be allowed to vote.
1 Fiat-Libertas 2018-06-18
I'm having a hard time figuring out if the left would actually support this, or claim it racist as usual.
1 TheLordHighExecu 2018-06-18
It would benefit the left. Education is the biggest determining factor between Rs and Ds
1 cheers_grills 2018-06-18
Education is racist tho
1 HueyCrashTestPilot 2018-06-18
So, it's racist.
1 EarnestNoMeta 2018-06-18
lol school debt is for suckers
1 error404brain 2018-06-18
>Imagine getting into debt to go to the uni.
Burgerland is trying its hardest to fuck over the concept of an educated workforce, ain't they ?
1 EarnestNoMeta 2018-06-18
ever heard of not being retarded? of for the less astute, trade school?
1 error404brain 2018-06-18
Knowing how to remove shit from canalisation do not make one better at voting, tho.
1 WinterTeaching 2018-06-18
I would have said yes, once upon a time. Then /r/CBTS_stream came...
1 Pepperglue 2018-06-18
Walking on a dangerous line here, u/GoTuckYourduck, for a moment I thought you were talking about Black voters.
1 GoTuckYourduck 2018-06-18
You must have been really oblivious to the topic, then.
No, I'm talking about the demography with libraries full of studies documenting the effects of advanced senescence on the elderly. What you are doing is more comparable to accusing someone of referring to racial segregation because they argue against giving voting rights to children.
1 Pepperglue 2018-06-18
Okay, I'll play again.
Walking on a dangerous line here, u/GoTuckYourduck, for a moment I thought you were talking about young voters.
1 GoTuckYourduck 2018-06-18
You mean children, for whom we don't give the power to vote until they reach a certain age for obvious reasons?
1 Pepperglue 2018-06-18
No, I mean 18-30 year olds.
1 GoTuckYourduck 2018-06-18
Then you must be really oblivious to the topic then, if you think that the effects of advanced senescence apply to 18-30 year olds or that the circumstances surrounding them are the same ones that make the elderly vulnerable to predators in this regard. In fact, given that you seem willing to understand why children are not allowed to vote, I can only assume that I'm arguing against someone who isn't quite aware with the mental deterioration that occurs with age and makes the elderly comparably vulnerable as their faculties are slowly regressed to that of children's.
1 Pepperglue 2018-06-18
Yeah, and there are studies that show brains don't full develop until 25 or something.
1 GoTuckYourduck 2018-06-18
In other words, you are trying to argue a completely different point ... so that you can argue against it? I mean, I think you've failed to realize your argument lost flair once you stopped trying to compare it to racial segregation and started comparing it to "young voters".
"for a moment I thought you were talking about young voters." Oh no, the horror of somehow being compared to a common debate.
Not only that, but the circumstances are different. A lot of the impetus behind allowing people at younger ages to vote simply does not apply to retired elderly. They are not in the job market, nor are they in any danger of giving up their lives in the military without the right to vote, nor are they in a condition defined by the growing impairment of their faculties.
1 Pepperglue 2018-06-18
No. My point is saying a certain population shouldn't vote because they are prone to be "manipulated" and likely "vote against their own" interest are dumb, and disingenuous.
Just admit you want everybody to vote like you do.
1 GoTuckYourduck 2018-06-18
Reread your comment, and realize that you are doing what I've pointed out: you are trying to argue a completely different point so that you can argue against it. You are reducing the argument to what you want it to be to make it sufficiently generic to interpret something else under its banner, ignoring the repeated attempts of informing you of the nuances.
You are basically tailoring the argument because you just want to see your gross mis-characterization validated, that "[I] just want everybody to vote like [I] do". You have not entered this argument to inform yourself in any way.
1 Pepperglue 2018-06-18
Your nuances are irrelevant because those are set by arbitrary standards.
Old people have been participating in our society for as long as people can remember, and you cannot claim all of them are out of their minds.
Banning them from voting because they tend to vote against your reason and then brand it as protecting their interest is disingenuous.
1 GoTuckYourduck 2018-06-18
Not really, the standards are quite precise: retired, or not retired, which also corresponds to their ability to be involved with, participate, and represent the society they are voting in. And hey, it even corresponds a lot of the impetus wdhy people as young as 18 are given voting power, an issue you were feigning relevant just a few comments ago.
What is irrelevant is the notion that the exception should determine the norm, as that would throw any notion of norm out the window. According to this logic, children should also vote, as there are child geniuses more mature than some adults. Sorry, but medical studies on the effects of prolongued senescence and the elderly are not "arbitrary".
Again, that's not the reason behind it,, but at this point, you are just repeating it because:
1 Pepperglue 2018-06-18
Fine. We're not getting this into each other's head at this point.
You think old people shouldn't vote. I don't agree with that. I will just leave it as this.
1 watermark02 2018-06-18
No, people above the age of 45 are senile and retarded and shouldn't be allowed to vote. Maximum voting age now.
1 BigPriceToupee 2018-06-18
My solution: Kill anybody over the age of 13. Basically if you have pubes, you gotta go.
1 EarnestNoMeta 2018-06-18
im not at all surprised to hear you say this
1 wow___justwow 2018-06-18
sup faggot